Last year, Call of Duty 4 took a well established franchise and changed it all around. It traveled into the future to a modern day world war leaving its World War II roots behind. With the WWII setting practically a sub-genre in the gaming world, few fans minded the change and when it came to the end result, pretty much all were incredibly pleased, including myself. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was not just a massive critical success, but also one of the best selling titles Activision has ever had. With Grand Theft Auto IV's delay, COD4 was the talk of the whole industry with both gamers and press alike. So when rumors began to swirl that the franchise would head back to World War II and Treyarch would be taking over, the reactions were less than positive. But promises made by both Activision and Treyarch assured us that Call of Duty: World At War would live up to its legacy...does it?

Well, I'll say this much, I don't hate World at War. In fact, it'd have been perfect had it been Call of Duty 3. My personal take on COD: World at War is as Call of Duty 3 the "We're Sorry Edition". Okay, so COD3 wasn't that terrible, but it was really bland and boring. World at War changes the pace and cranks it up a few notches. Now, there's a flurry of fire all around, tons and tons of enemies will make themselves present during heated battles. Thankfully, unlike COD4, enemies don't just respawn endlessly, so if you take out MG gunners in a bunker from a distance, they will stay dead.

The story of the game throws you into the shoes of an American marine and a Russian militant, so much like COD4, you experience the game from two alternating perspectives and two separate locations (with the exception of one mission). The presentation is well done, as it progresses the story through a sequence of actual archived World War II footage with a good dose of stylistic flare added to make it all stand out. The game's campaign will take you through various countries, including Japan, Germany, and Russia, all spanning different events.

But I did find the actual progression of the storyline to be fragmented, as the game tends to skip years between events without really filling in the blanks. So you'll often find yourself confused at the beginning of a number of stages, wondering what the hell happened and how you ended up in a very vulnerable position. A more fleshed out experience that led up to those vulnerable states would've certainly been nice to see.

As far as weaponry goes, much of it will be familiar to the old COD faithful, so there isn't a whole lot to be excited about. Nevertheless, shooting feels satisfying as every bullet pops with force and sounds the part too. Recoil issues aren't present, but you can't run and gun here as you can in other FPS games; your reticule will expand when you're on the move, worsening your aim considerably. Mission structure remains similar to past games, and objectives are fairly straightforward. Mission variety won't impress long time fans of the genre, but the excitement of battles is still enough to keep the game feeling enjoyable.

The flamethrower coupled with the game's flammable environment make for some good fun, as I found myself using the weapon for nearly an entire mission just because it was a blast to use. But beyond that, this Call of Duty doesn't feel a whole lot different than past ones, and once again, the multiplayer facet is what most of you will be looking to get in on. With a four-player online co-op option, or two-player offline co-op, you can now enjoy the all new WWII campaign with your friends in tow. If the campaign battlefield just isn't where you want to be, then take it to the online battlegrounds filled with rounds of Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, Domination, Free For All, Search and Destroy, and more. And feel free to take the reins of a tank if one is available. After all, what good is a WWII shooter if you can't wreck havoc behind the wheel (is there a wheel?) of a tank?

Unfortunately, in comparison to the likes of Resistance 2, or even the upcoming Killzone 2, COD's 18 player limit seems almost paltry in respect to Sony's 60 and 32 player behemoths. Nonetheless, gamers will still get one of the most refined online systems, as much of what made COD4's online component so great transfers over, with new enhancements made. So as far as value is concerned, you're getting your money's worth, if only for the multiplayer. The campaign is also a bit longer than that of COD4's which should excite fans who felt last year's game was too short.

Visually, one can argue that World at War is a technically better game than Modern Warfare, as it runs on an improved version of the COD4 engine. Unlike COD4: Modern Warfare, which ran at an obscure resolution below 720p, World at War runs at a proper 720p, and is capable of upscaling to 1080i and 1080p without taking a toll on visual fidelity. While the gritty art direction of this one is a welcome feature, the overall tone is still World War II, and so there just isn't much in terms of visual design that'll impress you. On the other hand, if World War II is still your thing, then there isn't a whole lot to complain about.

Assuming COD4 doesn't exist, COD: World at War is still a well designed FPS game. The game engine runs briskly at 30 frames per second, never missing a beat, not even during the most hectic of moments. Additionally, texture detail ranges from good to great, and other details such as lighting, character detail, and image quality are all superb. So make no mistakes about it, this is still a great looking game with a plethora of action and great detail on screen.

Audio is yet another strong suit here. Once again, the newest Call of Duty game boasts fantastic voice acting and utterly incredible sound effects. Voice acting is very frequent and you'll hear a lot of it during your missions. Thanks to Gary Oldman and Kiefer Sutherland for lending their voices, you should also enjoy every bit of dialogue you hear. Moreover, when the battlefield is hot with fire, the bullets and explosions will come to life if you've got an audio setup that can cause earthquakes. The intensity of COD: World at War is really magnified by the audio, so play this one loud.

To wrap up, Call of Duty fans should still enjoy what Call of Duty: World at War has to offer. Fans of Call of Duty 2 who found themselves utterly disappointed by COD3 should absolutely love everything that World at War offers. Even though the game throws you back into a familiar setting, and the story isn't super polished, it's still an exciting FPS with great visuals, superb audio, and epic multiplayer gameplay. If you're looking for a great WWII shooter, this is it.

Only 30fps? That's a pity, as COD4 was one of the few games this generation that reached 60, if I'm not mistaken. And for an fps, full-motion grade animation doubly enhances the emersion-factor. Either way, I tend to avoid war games that caricature real world events. I feel I don't enjoy such imagery without losing a piece of my soul. I couldn't stomache COD4, and for the same reason, I won't be playing this one. Though, I'm probably alone on that one.

I have been spoilt visually on the Killzone 2 Beta. I did not find the graphics in WaW any different to MW. However, the multi-player is fun.

I have decided to play the opposite way around. I will try to rank up in multi-player first, and the do the solo campaign, and then do the campaign with a friend in co-op. All in all I should clock in about 50 hours in total (or more over a longer period of time), making it fair value.

I acually prefer this to cod4 at the moment.. its new and fresh. if its lasts a year like cod4 did then THAT will be the real test.

I have to admit that CoD4 started to become stale, I would find myself hardly playing online apart from pvt games. when I saw Treyarch were doing CoD5 I vowed never to buy it.. how dumb was I?

I seriosly like this game, its the best WWII game Ive ever played.. makes the Beach Landing on MoH look like 'spyro goes to grandmas house'...lol

Have Treyarch toppled CoD4? for me they have, but whether I say that in a years time I couldnt say.. but the changes are enough to keep this cod4 mod on for quite some time, I might not ever take it off!

...until Feb, because killzone kicks everyones arse in FPS on the PS3.. sorry,I mean on anything.

yuh know my friend was telling me that he feels that farcry2 beats cod4 but i have to dissagree even though i havent played farcry2, they are totally different fps's. from what ive seen they cant be compared, gameplay is far to different. what do you guys think? im just saying this cause im curious what he will say about world at war. i unfortunatley donr have any money to buy any of these games right now, im falling behind lol :( but for me from what ive seen and read, cod4 still gets the win over world at war cause im way more into modern or futuristic shooters, im not a big fan of ww2.Last edited by MetalHead09 on 11/15/2008 4:41:17 AM

I loved farCry 2.. really good game. and yeh, very different games from CoD, you cant compare them.

you see topics like this on some forums like "should I buy Fallout3 or CoD5.. which is best".. d'uh! or "FarCry2 Vs Orange box" ...the only thing I would compare CoD4 with is probably CoD5, but thats just on game mechanics.

Ive always hated WWII shooters up til now, so im a changed man, but yeh I would say CoD4 is the best modern day fighter out there.. certainly worth picking up if you dont own it, for sure!Last edited by dillonthebunny on 11/15/2008 5:25:49 AM

X-Play only gave this a 4 out of 5, saying that it was good, but that there was nothing special about it compared to CoD4, so I guess a very slight disappointment overall. And yes, ALL versions, not just the PS3 version! ;-)

I saw elsewhere that people were mentioning some of the weapons in this are out of sync with the timeline (i.e. some of the weapons weren't around until AFTER the time the game takes place).Last edited by xnonsuchx on 11/15/2008 7:02:06 PM

I'm going to be honest, it kind of upsets me to see all of this hate on World at War. I never played the missions on Modern Warfare, I just went straight to the online stuff but with this one I beat the game and now I'm trying to beat it on Veteran to get all the trophies on the PS3... this game is one hell of a bitch on Veteran, let me tell you... I'm on the second to last mission and it's like the journey to each checkpoint is a mission in itself where the objective is to die 164 times before you can proceed.

But that aside, I really like World at War because it's different, but the same. It's like, everyone likes Modern Warfare, duh, nobody will shut up about it. I think WaW is kind of like an expansion for it.. or something.

I think the problem lies in the fact that they release these games too quickly. Altough maybe they were just going for a great shooter and nothing new since 4, if they wanted to go for something revolutionary they would need more time to do so. Hence, why the game is almost identical to 4, at least from what I hear. I have no interest in it, but that's mainly b/c I put too many hours into 4 and got bored with it. I need something new like K2 to get addicted to FPSs all over again lol. For the time being, R2 is my drug. =)Last edited by Daedusian on 11/16/2008 12:09:46 PM

its amazing im a die hard cod fan ive owned them all from the pc titles.

its better than cod 4 imo and cod 4 was great not denying that. Please if you have doubts about the game play it dont listen to other peoples reviews who are always going to lower it than cod 4 thats only there opinions i think its amazing and cod4 will now be gathering dust

the game seperates the men from the boys theres less automatic weapons and alot more rifles and semi auto rifles. This makes the game more skill based ie aiming etc rather than spraying bullets everywhere thats why alot of people wont like it to

Not a mega fan of the CoD franchise. only ever owned 4 and WaW, and I have to say that i prefer WaW. I don't know what it is, 4 was good but i only got it 'cos i had completed all my other games and needed a new one to complete:P however it did get me into the series so marks for that. they should have used a different server tho, the CoD4 server is pants

Yes its a good game but like the other guy said it feels like a COD4.1, it doesn't really seem that Treyarch did much, as if they hoped that if they leave most of the things the way they are that it should get similar sales/reviews as COD4.... FAIL!!!